My Email to Sen Frosh

Great letter!

-Z/28- said:

Unfortunately this is true.

I had a thought though. What if we start sending letters(real paper) to him en-masse, just to swap his office down. Maybe send them to his home address as well.

Click to expand...

Better yet why don't we rent a bus and politely protest in front of some of the more stubborn senators and reps houses. Obviously stick to the street where it is public property and use no scare tactics.

Well written letter, but I suspect it will fall on deaf ears. According to that youtube video with Frosh in it, gun owners and 2a supporters are "nuts."

And heres MY letter to Frosh:
Sir,
During the rally on the 6th, you failed to allow the people to testify, therefore violating the first amendment rights of those that showed. While I can see removing rowdy or violent protesters, you simply arbitrarily capped the hearing. I’d dare say you realized how lopsided the testimony was going to be. How can you be a representative OF the for FOR the people if you are only going to muzzle them for exercising their rights, or at least TRYING to? To see this happen is appalling, almost as bad as one of your coworkers playing CHESS during the proceedings on his government computer. Last I checked, that was misuse of government property and something along the lines of a workplace violation of set policy. While you may in your mind feel that you are on a righteous crusade (or jihad if that is how you swing, whatever works for you, this IS America) you do not have the right to deny us our rights to speak.

Post this on Frosh's Facebook page! Folks are clueless on that page as to what is going on!

Great letter!

Afrikeber said:

Post this on Frosh's Facebook page! Folks are clueless on that page as to what is going on!

Click to expand...

Tried but I've been to two different Frosh FB pages and I do not have the ability to post a comment on either. The comment button is gone for me. I guess all most posts on the 6th somehow got me blocked.

csanc123 said:

He's a lawyer....I wouldn't put it past him to press charges or sue for harassment if we sent letters to his home.

Click to expand...

Bring it on!

Rickman said:

I don't have any expectation of it being read or especially considered but I emailed the following to the good senator along with all dems on the panel and additionally cc'ed the Honorable Senator Nancy Jacobs:

The Honorable Senator Frosh,

As you are well aware, yesterday, the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee heard testimony on Governor Martin O’Malley’s sweeping gun control package, Senate Bill 281. Thousands of pro-gun Marylanders attended the Second Amendment rally and packed the Senate office building to sign up and testify in opposition to the bill, which would drastically hinder our Second Amendment rights in Maryland. You also know that the supporters of this bill were outnumbered by some estimates as much as 10:1.

As a resident and taxpayer I join the tens of thousands of voices across this state that vehemently oppose this draconian bill which contrary to its title has no realistic intent to thwart crime or increase the safety of the good citizens of Maryland. It is obvious that the primary intent of this bill is nothing more than control; gun control, people control. I can assure you that in Nov 2014 this attempt to subvert both the State and US Constitution will not be forgotten.

What disturbs more however is not this veiled attempt at subverting God's natural law, the State and US Constitutions but the despicable conduct of members of your committee, you included. Your hearing was insincere on so many levels but the disdain your side showed for the citizens who sacrificed much to travel to and devote in many cases 14-16 hours to this historical event only to be summarily dismissed shows that you had no intention of actually listening to the desires of your Employers. Remember sir, as an elected public servant you work for the people, not as you seem to believe that the people are here for you to rule. This was most obvious in the total disregard shown by Senator Raskin who chose to play computer games rather than bother with the concerns of the lowly citizens expressing an opposing view as can clearly be seen in the attached photograph.

It was equally disturbing however that you yourself showed no respect with your "under your breath comment" concerning the perils of election day to come as you uttered "I'll take my chances" which verifies the scam that this hearing truly was. Sir I think that your odds are not quite as secure as you believe after this moment in history. You sir have indeed awakened a sleeping giant.

The main point of my correspondence here however is that you at least make some attempt to show impartiality and ask that you immediately remove Senator Raskin for his unprofessional behavior. It is obvious since this was an official hearing and the good senator was on duty that he had the responsibility to listen and that fact that he is playing computer games while on duty is a fraudulent use of taxpayer funds (his salary) and most probably his government issued computer. I would suspect that such behavior and internet usage using a state issued computer would be just as illegal as it is for my government issued work laptop. As taxpayers we paid none of you to summarily dismiss the facts presented in opposition to your desires, to ignore the citizens to which you are elected to represent and to that end you each swore an oath. This dereliction of duty if observed on most private citizens would lead to dismissal. I ask no less of you as the leader of your committee to one of your members.

I sincerely ask that you consider the concern I have expressed in this email along with the testimony you heard yesterday.

v/r
me
Port Deposit. MD

Click to expand...

Nice!

Senator Frosh may be a lawyer, but I think he is somewhat "bipolar." He has (2) daughters, and his actions through office are plainly biased to protecting his daughters - well, most of the time.

Senator Frosh was 1 of only 3 Senators that voted against the "Jessica's Law." Why?

I really don't understand how he was re-elected. It's possible the majority of illegal and legal Maryland immigrants (New Americans) residing in Montgomery county simply don't know or more than likely don't understand. I’m not saying that New Americans are clueless, I just feel they are being miss-informed.

Therefore, we need 2A activist to reach out to these "New Americans" in multi languages (mainly Spanish) to these immigrants and enlighten them about Senator Frosh and other "bad apples" in an effort to remove them from office.

Rock On!

Well done.

Nice letter. Can you post the photo of him playing chess?

How about we get a petition going calling for him and Raskin to get reprimanded by the Senate for their actions during the hearing?

wesser1 said:

Nice letter. Can you post the photo of him playing chess?

Click to expand...

I got this one from a post in the MD 2A forum.

Edit: It was in the WC. Two more posts and you can get there:

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=105334&highlight=Raskin

Is there an ethics committee?

Fox123 said:

Is there an ethics committee?

Click to expand...

I believe he is on it.

There is an ethics committee, he's on it. I sent the entire committee an e-mail blast last night.

Don't expect a response but at least by writing we let them know,that "We know"

He will care if we vote his ass out of office. Him and all the other sponsors and co sponsors. I dont know how or even where to begin but someone has to know the legal steps to unseat them every last one of them.

csanc123 said:

Good letter...he's gonna laugh at you though...Frosh doesn't care.

Click to expand...

Great Idea..

trickg said:

Frosh may laugh at it as a personal letter/email, but if you blanket-send it to every newspaper you can as a letter to the Editor as "An Open Letter to Senator Frosh" with the attached photo, there is a chance it will get published in at least a few publications.

The people of this State need to know that their elected officials are effectively snubbing their noses at the very people who put them in office in the first place.

Click to expand...

my own email to Frosh:

Senator Frosh:

I live in Montgomery County. I have voted in every election held since I turned 18. Until Wednesday I was registered as an Independent. I traveled to Annapolis that day to testify in your hearing, and was dismayed by what I saw. I did so because of concerns I have about the measures proposed in SB 281. I received no robocalls from the NRA, of which I am not a member. But on the basis of the contempt you displayed for those of us who do not agree with your proposals, I am registering as a Democrat solely so that I can vote against you in all future elections.

The testimony I prepared to deliver at your hearing is attached. Appended below is a letter I have just sent to Governor O’Malley.

I wish for you to enjoy an early and long retirement, and I will work to bring it to pass at the earliest opportunity.

Sincerely,

Beltbuckle

Dear Governor O’Malley:
Thank you for your note describing your recent accomplishments in improving choices and outcomes for Maryland’s middle class families. My family is one such, but what we have seen is a little different from the picture painted by your note.
I have a PhD in the Life Sciences and am the owner of a small consulting business that I have grown with my own hands. I moved to Maryland almost 30 years ago. I chose to live here because I looked forward to living in “the Free State” and thought it offered a higher quality of life than Virginia or the District, and (I hoped) a political climate friendly to an independent. My family is one of those middle class families you described, living in Montgomery County. But I do not feel that you have increased my choices or improved outcomes in a way that I can detect. Instead I find increasing traffic congestion amidst a proliferation of traffic cameras arrayed so as to make clear their primary purpose is revenue generation rather than public safety; substantially higher taxes than my neighbors across the Potomac pay; no meaningful assistance for small business owners from the myriad bureaucrats on your payroll (but no end of duplicative letters if I should err in complying with one of the countless regulations in place that do nothing to advance public safety or economic growth); and a political regime that actively disenfranchise anyone who is not a registered Democrat. And lately, the most grievous insult, your proposal in SB 281 ostensibly aimed at reducing gun violence.
I set my work aside for a day this week, and traveled to Annapolis to testify on your bill. Your ally, Chairman Frosh, put on a dazzling display of unpreparedness, incompetence, and contempt for your voters that in the end denied me and nearly a thousand other citizens who also came to testify their right to be heard. (My testimony is attached). But one of the most disturbing things I saw on Wednesday was your speech introducing and defending the bill. You obviously know a great deal about firearms and gun violence. Unfortunately, it all seems to be false.
You refer to the feeling we all share in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, Aurora, and other similar incidents that we must find a way to reduce the potential for such things ever to happen again. Yet your proposed legislation advances a number of proposals that both reason and experience demonstrate will not deliver the results you claim to seek.
You referred to your proposal to ban “military style assault weapons that have no place other than on the battlefield.” Yet the rifles that would be covered under your proposal are issued to no modern infantry by any government in the world. Though they may look similar to a casual glance, these rifles are functionally very different from the rifles used by modern militaries, though they are functionally indistinguishable from the rifles commonly used in hunting, competitive sports, target shooting, and personal defense. In many cases they are one and the same. Indeed, these rifles are the most commonly sold rifles in the country, and have been for year after year. As such, they cannot legally be banned by States, per the Supreme Court’s decisions prohibiting prohibitions of arms in common use. Aside from that, nearly all the features your proposal describes are purely cosmetic. They do nothing to alter the lethality of the rifle when it is used as a weapon. All these rifles fire one bullet for each squeeze of the trigger. Military style weapons are what is known as “select fire” in that the user can choose to fire with a single trigger squeeze a single round, or three, or an entire magazine (not a “clip”) of ammunition. Your focus on wrongly named “military style assault rifles” is as factual as somebody who refers to a Prius with a racing stripe and an air foil as a Formula One race car: abundantly contradicted by the facts, and laughable to anybody who knows the slightest thing about the subject matter. Your proposal fails further in that it targets firearms that are simply not used in the vast majority of gun crimes. In Maryland, FBI statistics show that rifles of any kind (of which those you incorrectly describe as “assault rifles” are a small subset) are used to commit less than half of one percent of the murders committed in 2011, with similar results in other years. So your proposed ban on these rifles, while ignoring other, cosmetically different but functionally identical and no less lethal rifles, cannot be expected to reduce gun crime by any statistically significant fraction. You cannot defend it on the basis of facts.
Indeed, we know this for a simple reason – your proposal has been tried before, and the results are clear: the federal ban that was in place for a decade in our recent past did not play any part in reducing gun violence. This has been confirmed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Institute of Justice, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, and an independent study by the University of Pennsylvania. In fact, a ban very similar to what you are proposing was in effect in Connecticut on the day of the Sandy Hook massacre, providing a most unwelcome but unambiguous demonstration of the efficacy of such bans. As one of the few who were allowed to testify on Wednesday pointed out, Albert Einstein had a definition for those who do the same thing over and over again, expecting different results: insanity.
Your proposal would also ban magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds, on the superficially reasonable but ultimately naïve and vain hope that this would reduce the carnage a madman could inflict. Your proposal overlooks a number of inconvenient facts. Even an unskilled individual can effect magazine changes very quickly; with a minimum of practice, intervals of less than a second are common. There are also already present in the United States and around the world millions upon millions of magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds – standard capacity magazines you incorrectly describe as large or high capacity. (Those who know anything about firearms use those terms to refer to magazines with a capacity of 50, 60, or more. Such magazines are generally avoided by serious marksmen because they are unreliable, jamming frequently.) And again, history undermines your hopes. The largest mass shooting in our nation’s history, at Virginia Tech, was committed by a madman who had a backpack full of ten round magazines (with only one or two of capacity 15) and essentially unlimited time to use them, because he was in a so-called “gun free zone.” We see how well that lovely idea protected the victims from the reality of a criminal with no respect for the law.
Your proposal would also impose a truly onerous procedure for licensing owners of the most common firearms with fees, fingerprints, and background checks that duplicate those already in place, supposedly in the name of reducing straw purchases. Yet data show that the majority of weapons used in gun crimes come not from straw purchases (which are already illegal) but from theft. Your proposals in this area also ignore the fact that the Supreme Court has clearly indicated that a fundamental, enumerated right such as that guaranteed by the second amendment, cannot be so burdened and infringed by states. This is a constraint on civil liberties no different from poll taxes. I read Attorney General Gansler’s opinion that these measures would, in fact, be allowed under the Constitution with amazement. Governor, you need better legal advice. While you are (I hope) seeking it, you may want to suggest Mr. Gansler read Murdock vs. Pennsylvania, which dates from 1943. Alen Gura will have him, for lunch. But even if you put these impermissible burdens into effect, what makes you think criminals would abide by them? By definition, these are individuals who are not deterred by words written on paper. The only ones who will be impacted by these proposals are the law abiding gun owners who you wrongly fail to see as your natural allies in reducing gun violence.
The only portion of SB 281 that has any hope of advancing the outcomes you claim to seek are the provisions that would improve our mental health system. These ideas are grounded in the recognition that 8 of the 9 most recent mass shootings in the nation were committed by people with mental health problems. Clearly, this IS an area where some action is needed. But seeing how grossly ineffective and contrafactual are the other proposals in SB 281, and how abundantly contradicted they are by reason and experience, I have little faith that the mental health provisions in this bill would be efficacious. The only virtue I can detect is that unlike the other measures in the bill, these would not infringe wholesale on the rights of every citizen, but rather only on those of a subset of the population, a subset enriched somewhat for the kinds of folks who have been responsible for the gun violence we all seek to reduce. But it remains nevertheless unclear how to bring that to pass without trampling in the rights of this minority – something history does not judge kindly.
Governor, you claim amidst the furor your proposal has raised that you do not seek to impair the rights of hunters, as if those are the rights at issue here. The rights of hunters are important, but the right enumerated in the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It has everything to do with empowering the people to resist the tyranny of the state, and it was a direct consequence of British attempts to disarm Americans that lead to the clashes at Concord and Lexington. This aspect of our history is well known, and the reasoning I’ve just described is well laid out in the Federalist Papers. A succinct historical précis has also been provided by the Supreme Court in Heller vs DC, which you might find illuminating.
But the most disturbing aspect of your proposed legislation is not that it cannot, by design, have the results you claim to seek. The worst thing is that because it is so poorly drawn, because it is so obviously incapable of delivering good results, and because it so clearly violates rights guaranteed by the Constitution, which pre-date the founding of our nation and are intrinsic to all of us as human beings, your proposal invites contempt and derision from those citizens without whose consent you cannot govern. If passed, this law will not deliver the benefits you seek. If passed, this bill will corrode our civic institutions and erode respect for the rule of law. It will inspire and galvanize widespread defiance and non compliance, and stir to civil disobedience large numbers of citizens whose strongest natural instinct is to uphold the rule of law. If passed, this law will surely trigger lawsuits Maryland is doomed to lose, wasting money that could be used to put guards in our schools and improve mental health care for our citizens.
I hope, therefore, that you will reconsider your well-intentioned but ill-considered proposal, withdraw it, and redirect your efforts into directions that have some chance of delivering the results we all would welcome.
Sincerely,

Beltbuckle
Silver Spring, MD